RE: comment on TA specification

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

Tim,

	about your sentence :
>
> "A trading partner (or 'trading party' if you prefer) performs
> one role in a Collaboration Protocol Profile."
>

I do not think that this is right. In a CPP a party can declare to support
many different business processes. In this case, he will be playing a
different role for each business process it supports (at least, nothing
prevents, I guess, that a party plays more than one role in a given BP).

Does this make sense ?

I think that the idea triggered by Marty is about the fact that a given
organization may be choosing to publish more than one CPP; one possible
explanation would be that in a big organization, each department
autonomously defines its own CPP (which can reference multiple BPs)

/Stefano


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au]
> Sent: 18 January 2001 01:02
> To: Duane Nickull
> Cc: Martin W Sachs; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebXML-Architecture List
> Subject: Re: comment on TA specification
>
>
> i agree with marty, the issue of what is (or is not) an
> "organisation/company" is too
> complex and un-necessarily restrictive.
>
> this highlights the need to clarify the use of the term "trading
> partner" (or 'trading
> party' if you prefer).
>
> is it possible that a TP (whatever that stands for!) have a
> single CPP (and potentially
> many CPAs).  Maybe each CPP defines what the TP is???
>
> the current glossary leaves this open.  might i suggest that this
> is almost self-defining.
>
> "A trading partner (or 'trading party' if you prefer) performs
> one role in a Collaboration
> Protocol Profile."
>
> For example, if  K-Mart have a division that deals with
> purchasing goods from SE Asia and
> this group have a defined CPP for contract suppliers and other
> for ad-hoc purchasing, then
> there would be  two  TPs.  One for K-Mart/SE Asia/contract and
> another for K-Mart/SE
> Asia/ad-hoc.
>
> - is that the way the TP team is thinking?
>
>
> Duane Nickull wrote:
>
> > Marty:
> >
> > I can forward this one,  especially since you and I have already
> > discussed this in our email.
> >
> > Team:
> >
> > This comment is a valid concern.  There will be cases with larger
> > enterprises whereby different divisions of the company may wish to
> > express their own CPP's.  Accordingly,  this requirement for One CPP per
> > Company would be prohibitive.
> >
> > I vote we take it out as Marty Suggests.
> >
> > Duane Nickull
> >
> > Martin W Sachs wrote:
> > >
> > > Klaus,
> > >
> > > Please forward to the TA team.
> > >
> > > Line 513-514:  The TP team collectively does not remember stating a
> > > requirement of registering only one CPP per trading partner.
> Please remove
> > > this requirement.  It is overly restrictive, especially for large
> > > enterprises, which may need to state various combinations and
> permutations
> > > of capabilities for different purposes.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Marty
> > >
> > >
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
> > >
> > > Martin W. Sachs
> > > IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> > > P. O. B. 704
> > > Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> > > 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> > > Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> > > Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> > >
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
>
>